In one of the more interesting recent cases involving same-sex parents, a Pennsylvania appellate court ruled that a lesbian couple’s known sperm donor must pay child support to the bio mom. The man was active in the couple’s life, and the two children he helped conceive called him “Papa,” according to an article in the Associated Press. He “spent thousands of dollars on the children,” even before the ruling. When the two mothers split, a court ordered the non-bio mom to pay support. She in turn sought to make the donor pay support as well.
A legal expert quoted in the article believes this could be the first time in the U.S. when a court has held three people responsible for child support and entitled to visitation. At the beginning of the year, a Canadian court named three people—a lesbian couple and the biological father—parents of the same child. The situation was different, however, in that all three were seeking to be legal parents while the moms were still together.
The U.S. case gets more complicated because the man has just died, and it is unclear what impact this will have. Still, the ruling seems a small step towards recognizing that some of us choose to have a known donor in our children’s lives, and to ensure that with that involvement comes responsibility. As long as it doesn’t take away from the rights of either mom, it seems like a good thing.
Additional clarification: There is definitely a danger here that courts might award donors (known or unknown) rights that the two moms do not want them to have. That’s not good. For families who want to bring a third parent into the mix, however, it looks like some courts are willing to envision that. But we have to be very careful where the limits are, so custody decisions are based on the initial agreements of the people involved. If the two moms and known donor don’t want the donor to be involved later, then I don’t think he should have any financial or custodial responsibility.
A fuzzy and still-evolving area of law, to be sure.
(Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.)
That is really truly terrifying. Very very negative. Where there is financial responsibility, there’s plenty of room for challenges to custody. And it certainly will curtail the chance of people randomly offering genetic material.
I agree there’s a danger here, which is why I said “As long as it doesn’t take away from the rights of either mom….” In my understanding (and I’m not a lawyer), one of the big factors in this case was that the two moms had wanted the donor’s involvement in their children’s lives. I don’t think the financial or custodial responsibility would extend to the rights of unknown donors–and I certainly hope not.
All I meant was that for families who want to bring a third parent into the mix, it looks like some courts are willing to envision that. But yes, we have to be very careful where the limits are here, so that custody decisions are based on the initial agreements of the people involved. If the two moms and known donor didn’t want the donor to be involved later, then I don’t think he should have any financial or custodial responsibility.
A fuzzy and still-evolving area of law, to be sure.
Further thoughts, because this issue has been bugging me all day:
I think it’s awful when a known donor tries to get rights from one of the moms, and I in no way condone any court rulings that promote that. I’m also, however, searching for a way that families who want an involved known donor can do so, and ensure he can’t just run off at some point after he agrees to be part of their child’s life. Maybe the problem is that our current legal system has no category for a person with that status–someone who isn’t a primary parent, but who has committed in some way to the child and to his/her parents. Or someone who is an intentional third primary parent, without being romantically involved with either of the other two. We’re trying to make an old system fit new paradigms. What we need is a new system–or at least new parts of it.
While I agree that when a couple wants a known donor to be involved as a parent then it would be wonderful of all three of the adults involved got to have parental rights and responsibilities… I do worry about the implications of this court ruling. For instance, I know several known donors who donated on the specific understanding that they would never be forced to pay child support or be a parent. With all the negative legislation going on where bio moms sever the non-bio mom’s connection, what’s to stop the bio mom, or the state, from then seeking child support from a known donor? And how will that influence men who would consider being known donors except for that?
I agree that our current legal system has no room for the subleties of our family structures… and until there is a structural change in the legal system so that the intentions of the people creating a family are honored no matter what form that takes (be it two moms, two dads, two couples, two moms and a donor, two dads and a surrogate, three equal parents of any combination of genders, or what have you) it just seems like a bad idea to get courts involved at all. But then how do we change things in a land where the fear and old paradigms seem to rule the legislature if we don’t work through the courts? That’s what I’d like to know, because a court ruling just seems so darned authoritarian and final.